Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp.
| Decision Date | 30 September 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:94CV01673(JBA).,3:94CV01673(JBA). |
| Citation | 285 F.Supp.2d 230 |
| Parties | IRAGORRI v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Otis Elevator Co. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Defendants United Technologies Corporation and Otis Elevator Company have filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts in plaintiffs' amended complaint. For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted.
On October 3, 1992, Mauricio Iragorri ("Mr.Iragorri") fell to his death down an empty elevator shaft in Cali, Colombia, after a repair person employed by International Elevator, Inc. ("International") propped open the elevator door with a screwdriver and left the entranceway unattended and unbarricaded, while the elevator car was not in place. Mr. Iragorri's surviving spouse, Haidee Iragorri ("Mrs.Iragorri"), brought suit against United Technologies Corporation and Otis Elevator Company, both on her own behalf and as the Ancillary Administratix of the Estate of Mauricio Iragorri on behalf of decedent's survivors, including Mrs. Iragorri and decedent's two minor children, Patricia Iragorri and Maurice Iragorri.
Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges four causes of action, each with two derivative claims. [Doc. # 144]. Counts 1-3 allege violations by Otis Elevator and United Technologies of Connecticut's Product Liability Act, Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-572m. [Doc. # 144] at 6-17. Counts 4-6 allege that Otis Elevator negligently carried out its duty to oversee, manage, and supervise the work of its contractors, authorized distributors and subsidiaries. [Doc. # 144] at 17-23. Counts 7-9 allege that International (the company that maintained and repaired the elevator in question) and OTESA (the company that installed the elevator in question) were negligent in their duties, and claim that the negligence of International and OTESA is attributable to Otis Elevator on a principal/agent theory. [Doc. # 144] at 23-27. Counts 10-12 allege recklessness on the part of International and OTESA, and seek to attribute the recklessness to Otis Elevator as their principal. [Doc. # 144] at 27-31. As alleged in the amended complaint, these violations resulted in the wrongful death of Mr. Iragorri (Counts 1, 4, 7, and 10), Mrs. Iragorri's loss of consortium with her husband (Counts 2, 5, 8, and 11), and Patricia and Maurice's loss of consortium with their father (Counts 3, 6, 9, and 12).
Defendants seek summary judgment on the entire complaint, arguing that there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and that, as a matter of law, plaintiff's claims are not viable. On the first three counts, defendants argue that Otis is not the "product seller" and thus the Connecticut Product Liability Act does not apply to it. As to counts 4-6, defendants assert that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations, because plaintiffs did not raise a direct negligence cause of action against Otis in their original complaint. Defendants also argue that Otis was under no duty to supervise or assist the Colombian companies, and that any breach of such a duty was not the proximate cause of Mr. Iragorri's death. Finally, with regard to the claims of vicarious liability in Counts 7-12, defendants assert that there is no evidentiary basis for a finding that International or OTESA were agents of Otis.
For the purposes of the summary judgment motion, the following facts are not in dispute.
1. The companies: Otis Elevator Company ("Otis") is a New Jersey Corporation that, since 1976, has been a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation ("UTC"), a Delaware Corporation. See Hseih Aff. [Doc. # 180, Ex. 3]. Otis is headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut, and UTC is headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut. Id. In 1924, Otis began expanding its international presence, and incorporated a subsidiary corporation in Maine ("Otis Maine") in order to facilitate its business in foreign countries. See [Doc. # 176, Ex. 4]. By 1987, Otis Maine had a branch office in Colombia, which was supported by a Headquarters staff located in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. See Duquenoy Dep. [Doc. # 176, Ex. 8] at 28. At this time, however, Otis began restructuring its Latin American business, selling most of Otis Maine's South American operations to local management, and eliminating the headquarters staff that provided overhead services and technical support to the Latin American entities. See Pease Memo [Doc. # 176, Ex. 7]; Duquenoy Dep. [Doc. # 176, Ex. 8] at 21-23. On October 12, 1987, Otis entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement to sell all of the shares of Otis Maine to local Colombian management, and, after Otis had removed all non-Colombian assets from the company, to rename the company International Elevator Corporation ("International"). See Purchase and Sale Agreement [Doc. # 177, Ex. 14]. The purchase price was $40, plus Otis' agreement to maintain at least a $1.5 million annuity contract to satisfy pension obligations for employees of the Colombian corporation who retired on or before the closing on July 15, 1988. See Purchase and Sale Agreement, §§ 1.01, 1.03, 4.10, 8.01 [Doc. # 177 Ex. 14] at 4544, 4549, 4553-4554. In June 1988, the Colombian National Planning Department approved the purchase of International Elevator. Otis subsequently entered into a Supply Agreement [Doc. # 177, Ex. 15], a Technical Assistance Agreement [Doc. # 177, Ex. 22], and a Licensing Agreement [Doc. # 177, Ex. 18] with International, and International's focus turned primarily to the maintenance and modernization of Otis equipment. See Royalty Committee Application, [Doc. # 176, Ex. 11] at 4095. Otis conducted field audits of International's operations in 1986, 1989, and 1991. See [Doc. # 180, Ex. 4].
Also in 1987, former Otis employees in Columbia formed a separate corporation, Organization Técnica De Elevadores, S.A. ("OTESA"). See Royalty Committee Application, [Doc. # 176, Ex. 13] at 4256. OTESA's primary work involved the assembly and installation of Otis elevators in Colombia. Like International, OTESA entered into Supply, Technical Assistance, and Licensing Agreements with Otis. See [Doc. # 177, Ex. 21]; [Doc. # 177, Ex. 23]; [Doc. # 177, Ex. 19]. These agreements were nearly identical in form to the agreements between Otis and International.1
Otis has a Brazilian subsidiary, Elevadores Otis Ltda. ("Otis Brazil"), incorporated under the laws of Brazil, that is one of the anchors of Otis' Latin American operations. Otis owns 99.9999968% of the shares of Otis Brazil. See [Doc. # 176, Ex. 1]. Since 1988, Otis Brazil has had its own board of directors, its own working capital, and its own facilities, including factories. See Prunes Aff., [Doc. # 176, Ex. 2]. Otis Brazil currently has 1,800 employees, which it pays from its own funds, and in 1992 it had approximately 3,000 employees paid from its own funds. See id. Otis supervised Otis Brazil's facilities through the use of annual field quality audits [Doc. # 180, Ex. 17], and undertook a series of agreements with Otis Brazil, including a Trademark License Agreement, a Patent Agreement and License to Use Patents, and a Technology Agreement and License to Use Technical Data Know-How. See [Doc. # 180, Ex. 18]. In 1987, Otis Brazil was appointed a "Supervising Company" of Otis' export market in Latin America, "responsible for the implementation of all Otis LAO [Latin American Operations] policies and strategies in these markets." See McMahon Memo [Doc. # 180, Ex. 7] at 5208, 5211.
2. The incident: The elevator that was under repair when Mr. Iragorri fell to his death was identified as Model LA692, and was ordered by OTESA from Otis Brazil in May 1990. See Sales Statement [Doc. # 177, Ex. 30]. OTESA installed the elevator in the Portada Del Mar apartment complex in Cali, Colombia, and retained International to service the elevators in the complex. See Pombo Aff. [Doc. # 177, Ex. 32, at ¶¶ 11-12]; see also [Doc. # 177, Ex. 33]. On Oct. 2, 1992, Gerardo Ortiz Osorio, an International employee, came to repair the elevator in question, and left an elevator door on the fifth floor jammed open with a screwdriver. See Def. Br. at 16 (); Garcia Dep. [Doc. # 180, Ex. 2] at 24-25; Gonzalez Zamorano Letter Unofficial Translation [Doc. # 180, Ex. 24] at 5185. Mr. Iragorri, who was visiting his mother on the fifth floor of the building, fell down elevator shaft and died of his injuries.
Defendants assert that Otis Brazil designed and built the LA692 model, and that none of the component parts of the elevator in question were manufactured or sold by Otis. Defendants also state that the order for the elevator in question was on a CKD basis, which means it was an order for elevator components, not a complete elevator, and thus the components Otis Brazil sold to OTESA did not include elevator entrance door panels, the cab panels, the cab front columns, or other such parts. According to the defendants, OTESA manufactured or locally obtained the other components.
Plaintiffs dispute defendants' claim that Otis had no involvement in the manufacture or sale of the LA692 elevator, claiming instead that Otis, from its Latin American Operations, managed and controlled Otis Brazil. Plaintiffs also dispute Otis' characterization of a CKD order, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LOU v. OTIS ELEVATOR Co.
...or other activities which placed an item in the stream of commerce. See id. at 79-82, 579 A.2d 26. In Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp., 285 F.Supp.2d 230, 239-240 (D.Conn.2003), vacated, in part, on other grounds by 314 F.Supp.2d 110 (D.Conn.2004), the Federal District Court for the Di......
-
Micjan v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...... WAL-MART STORES, INC., GARAN, INC., and GARAN SERVICES CORP., Defendants, v. TRIBORO QUILT MANUFACTURING CORP., Third-Party t. Civil Action No. 14-855 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA August 4, ...Ryobi Technologies, Inc. , 115 F. Supp. 3d 661 (E.D. Va. 2015), a case with facts similar to ..., 571 F. Supp. 2d 408, 422 (W.D.N.Y. 2008) (New York law); Iragorri v. United Tech. Corp. , 285 F. Supp. 2d 230, 237 (D. Conn. 2003); Ellis ......
-
Klorczyk v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 3:13-cv-00257 (JAM)
...parent-subsidiary relationship is insufficient to impute a subsidiary's tort liability to its parent. See Iragorri v. United Techs. Corp., 285 F. Supp. 2d 230, 237-38 (D. Conn. 2003), reconsideration granted and vacated in part on other grounds, 314 F. Supp. 2d 110 (D. Conn. 2004). For a co......
-
Dzurnak v. CRD Metal Works, LLC
...court held that the defendant was not a product seller due to dearth of evidence regarding its involvement in the stream of commerce. In Iragorri, the decedent fell from an empty elevator shaft, which led to his death. See Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp., 285 F.Supp.2d 230, 233 (D.Con......
-
What's in a name? Possibly, strict liability as an apparent manufacturer.
...agreement was insufficient to subject Goodrich to strict liability under [section] 14); Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp., 285 F. Supp.2d 230, 238-239 (D. Conn. 2003) (granting summary judgment for trademark licensor on strict liability claims, where plaintiff introduced no evidence of ......